Read app settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that the tool is 'free', matches the web app settings, and enumerates the returned settings, which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds information (scope, contents, parity, read-only/free). No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what settings are returned, confirms it matches the web app, and notes it is free. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly that is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4 per the calibration. The description correctly implies there are no inputs, and it doesn't need to explain parameter formatting since none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies a clear verb ('Read'), a resource ('this account's app settings'), and enumerates the exact settings included (language, theme, weekly email toggle). It also notes parity with the web app's Settings pane, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on different resources (e.g., voice, posts, connectors).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating what it reads and that it is read-only and free, but it does not explicitly redirect away from alternatives like update_settings or mention when not to use it. The context is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on alternate selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.